in the end that interviewer was basically reverting to the usual, ‘but if they don’t get to compete the female category for sport, they will be depressed and may consider suicIde.’ While not once understanding the harm women and girls face doing damage to their bodies trying to squeeze that extra performance to not only beat female competitors but now male competitors, and the depression those displaced women must feel if they cannot compete.
That interview showed all the flaws in the inclusion argument. Because ultimately those using those arguments are shown to only be focused on prioritising male people. They have disregarded female competitors in their consideration.
This interviewer brought out all the trope. From
—authentic living,
-to ‘there has to be a way, you all are just not trying hard enough to find a solution’,
-to the Phelps ambit to the Semenya argument
-to LGB inclusion,
-to ‘what about your friend Rene’
-to the ‘surely you don’t want to be seen as aligned with the Republicans’,
-to ‘surely the controversy should have kept you quiet’,
-to people thought you were male too once, now you are punching down.’
I think once you see through the misinformation and the emotional manipulation, you really cannot go back to seeing this line of questioning as being intelligent, researched or anything but mindless. It is glaringly obvious that some people are absolutely more concerned about being perceived as being aligned with the right side of history politically than conceiving they could be wrong because that fear has fully prejudiced their critical thinking on the topic. But this interview really shines a spotlight on how it is done. On how the mind works through it to reveal exactly that motivation.